Talk:Demonflesh golem
Excessive links? I think linking "slam" and "claw" is going a bit overboard with the links (given the existing link to "creature weapon"). This seems to be getting into the "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would otherwise follow." idea from NWNWiki:Manual of style#Wiki_links. --The Krit 13:57, May 7, 2012 (UTC) * Well, I can appreciate the "over-linking" issue but what prompted this was the fact that creature weaponry is displayed with essentially two different conventions within the wiki bestiary. Some of them use the creature weapon nomenclature, which is fine if you happen to be be a builder and have instant recall of what slam, gore, etc. mean in terms of damage type... and then other articles use the actual damage type and ignore the technical names for the item used as natural weapons. For a pure player, the item names mean nothing. Only the damage types themselves impact what happens in game, especially when it involves the reciprocal defensive items which would counteract those damage types. :Initially, I had considered just replacing all the claw/claw/slam type labels with the damage type method, but decided the same proviso could be accomplished with a simple link. If any player is unsure about a particular item's damage type, they need not read the creature weapon article first and then follow the link to the applicable item of the creature they were interested in to get the information. (This is a somewhat lengthy explanation, but the point is, I did give the administration serious thought before implementing it.) Naturally, it is more work on my part to insert the links since my chief incentive is in preparing an NWN bestiary spreadsheet (for a group of about 40-50 members of our local LAN group) and using the wiki to double-check the information. As I have noticed any inconsistencies from article to article or conflicts with the toolset data, I have been attempting to eliminate those differences since I will eventually "touch" every default creature page before this bestiary project is complete. However, bottom line... it's your call. You understand the workings of the wiki better than I do and I rely on your own expertise to keep things organized properly. Let me know what you prefer. --Iconclast 18:32, May 7, 2012 (UTC) :* Well, "claw/claw/bite" is significantly shorter and easier to parse than "piercing-slashing/piercing-slashing/slashing". I think I had a tendency to use the "claw"-type names when a creature had natural weapons with different damage types and the exact damage type when there was only one. The idea was to make the entries easier to read, partly on the assumption that someone looking up creature articles regularly would come to recognize the types of creature weapons. Also, the following statement is not true: "they need not read the creature weapon article first and then follow the link to the applicable item of the creature they were interested in to get the information". No such need existed, as the information is in the third sentence of the creature weapon article. (Maybe it should be added to the table in that article as well...) --The Krit 16:33, June 1, 2012 (UTC) ::* I can only echo the needs of the players I come in contact with on a regular basis. Understand... these folks are only interested in the basic values that impact their gaming decisions and care little of the esoteric elements. They will typically search for what damage type a specific monster causes to prepare their defenses appropriately. The fastest way to deliver this information to them is to publish the actual damage type directly on the creature article, as untidy as it may appear to you personally . "claw/claw/bite" means nothing to them (or to me, for that matter) and rather than force them to read and understand an article on creature weapons first, I've been furnishing the damage type. There is a mixture of damage expression methods shown throughout all the creature articles, some have both the damage types and other the creature weapon names and yet others have both. Since the entry is listed in the section entitled "Damage", the name of the weapon that causes the damage is peripheral to the damage itself. I find that the convention that uses "(creature weapon)" in parenthesis effectively provides a link for those who seek more than just damage information. The weapon names themselves without the actual damage is insufficient for anyone but a creature builder. So whether you link the damage types or the creature weapon names is just a personal bias. The same number of links appear either way. --Iconclast 21:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC) :::* How does this situation change by using "claw" instead of "claw"? It's still a (single) link to follow before finding the damage type. (My objection was not to linking to the claw article, but to linking to both the claw and creature weapon articles in such a short span.) I could perhaps see using something like "claw", but that could end up generating more confusion than it resolves. --The Krit 23:35, June 2, 2012 (UTC) ::::* It saves the navigator from needing to perform a wiki search using keyword "claw" just to discover what type of damage a claw causes. The link to Creature weapon in the creature articles are always written as parenthetic information which means it may not be necessary to understand the ratings themselves (i.e. a departure) but are provided as related information. :::::Your second "confusing" proposal would yield an identical result identical to the one linking Claw item. It would compress the amount of viewed text while providing the same navigation as "piercing-slashing" even though piercing-slashing identifies the damage type on the page without a need for further navigation. :::::Until in-game properties list values like Damage Resistance: Claw Resist 5/-'' appear on items, the relationship between technical name & damage type is peripheral to the issue and can remain unknown to a player without negative effect. Granted, more experienced players, especially former D&D fans, need no reminder of what type of damage type each of the creature weapons cause (and there are adequate links scattered through the related articles like Creature weapon, Damage resistance, etc.), but for those who are having a combat-related issue with a particular creature and then accesses the associated creature NWNwiki article to identify the applicable factors, links are the most expeditious method to provide comprehensive information to them. So I guess the real question is: What do YOU view as the most significant factor in article construction: Minimum text with minimum links OR comprehensive information in a single page using whatever number of links needed to accomplish that? --Iconclast 15:19, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :::::* Why would a navigator need to perform a wiki search to discover the damage type of a claw creature weapon? Just follow the provided link to the creature weapon article, and read that article. As I already stated, '''the damage type of "claw" is stated in the third sentence there'. If the information was not there (or perhaps if it was buried deep within that article), then sure we should have another link, but the existing link to creature weapon provides all the information you are saying is missing. Why do we need so many links to the same information? Is reading a single paragraph that much of a burden? As for being parenthetical, yes, the damage type might be unnecessary to understand the amount of damage as it only matters in limited situations. And since "claw" in this article is just as parenthetical as "creature weapon", what is your point? (If the parentheses surrounding "creature weapon" make that link "bad" somehow, why do the parentheses surrounding "claw" not do the same thing to the links you added?) :::::: Now for the question: "What do YOU view as the most significant factor in article construction: Minimum text with minimum links OR comprehensive information in a single page using whatever number of links needed to accomplish that?" Answer: neither. Minimum text cannot be a goal since an empty article accomplishes that, and an empty article is of no use. Similarly, minimum links would mean no links, which I guess goes back to the empty article since you combined this with minimum text. (I would think "minimum links" goes more with "comprehensive" since one can eliminate the need for links by copying the content of other articles. Fewer links, but more text.) Comprehensive information in a single page is not a goal since being fully comprehensive means including every marginally-related detail, regardless of how few people are going to be concerned abut it. This leads to information overload and to readers being unable to find what they are looking for amidst the mire of barely-related ancillary information. Not to mention that it also leads to a hard-to-manage duplication of information across numerous articles. Rather than those two (extreme) options, I'd view a concise presentation of the most commonly-wanted details as possibly being the most significant factor in article construction, with the provision that this factor becomes weaker as you progress down the article. (That is, if you keep reading an article, you get to the less commonly wanted details, particularly those not in another article.) Links are a great tool for relegating tangential information to other articles, making that information easily accessible to readers without forcing it upon those more interested in the subject of the article. They help with both keeping things concise (lower word count) and making articles comprehensive (but not on a single page). They just need to be used in moderation so that the text does not devolve into a distracting series of links. :::::: Bonus wiki tip: you do not have to navigate anywhere to see where claw leads. Just hover your mouse over the link and wait for the tooltip. --The Krit 21:51, June 27, 2012 (UTC)